Kalam cosmological agument

[atheist buddy]

The argument goes like this:

Everything which begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause
The cause is the God of classical theism



Here is another argument:

Everything which breaks has a cause
My toaster broke
Therefore the breaking of my toaster has a cause
The cause is the God of classical theism



How do the notions that the universe existing has a cause, and my toaster breaking has a cause, in any way logically lead to the concusion that this cause is an allpowerful sentient intelligent being who reads our minds and doesn't want us to masturbate?


Assume that the argument properly defines what "begins" means (which the argument doesn't), assume that everything which "begins" to exist indeed has a cause (although it hasn't been demonstrated), assume that the argument properly defined what the universe is (although the argument doesn't), assume that it began to exist (although it hasn't been demonstrated), and then, sure, you come to the conclusion that something caused the universe.

Much like something caused my toaster to break.

Why not assume something like a quantum fluctuation in the singularity, or a power surge from a circuit breaker burning out?

[Bust Nak]

That is fine, but that doesn't change the fact that you are implying that physical reality can be used to explain the origins of physical reality...and you calling it a "meta-physical" reality doesn't negate such circular reasoning.

No, I haven't implied such a thing at all. That fact that what you have suggested here is circular reasoning, should have been enough to tell you that you've created a strawman.

They both mean the same, and are both equally absurd...and if you think otherwise, give an analogy at which both concepts are described.

I did give you an analogy - I am proposing that I can count from any number to zero in a finite number of steps, that's one concept. Your strawman is proposing that one can count to/from infinity, these are absolutely not the same thing and only the latter is absurd.

I would if I felt like it.

Second challenge - present a quote of my proposing something along the lines of "possible for us to arrive at today after having traversed an infinite amount of prior days." Don't felt like meeting the challenge? Then retract your claim.

And I said that any loaded question that I asked is a reflection of the irrational concept that I am describing.

And in turn I said the "irrational concept" that you are describing, is a fantasy of your own creation, and is a strawman argument.

Um, no, the arguments shows the absurdity which would exist if one presumes an infinite universe.

By assuming that an infinity is itself an absurdity, that's why it is question begging.

Ok, well...give the syllogism(s) that I asked for, that you are appealing to.

I am not appeal to any syllogism other than my own. All I brought up Aristotle for, is to illustrate my point that infinite regression isn't trivially false like you'd like to think it is.

Oh, you were making false accusations, I understand now.

No, if you understood you would have accepted defeat. But that's why I like debating with you, so much gusto!

Fine, so if you were to go back in time and traverse the same amount of days going backwards in time that is the equivalent to the amount of days that you traversed to get to "today", and placed a natural number on all of those prior days as you went back in time, what number would be the equivalent day?

Traversed from WHERE to get to today? It would be 1 for one day ago, 2 for two days ago, 3 for three days ago, and so on. So tell me exactly which day you are referring to by "equivalent day" and I'll give you a number.

Both are absurd...and if you think otherwise, then simply answer the question above.

Your question is incomplete, you need to tell me which day you are referring to by "equivalent to the amount of days that you traversed to get to today."

You didn't have ANY problem answering the scenario of you walking 20 yards forward and backwards on the football field.

Correct, I did not have ANY problem answering that scenario because you supplied two specific points. Note your failure to supply the same for the original scenario.

So you shouldn't have any problems answering the above question.

Incorrect - the question above did not provide two specific points.

Nonsense. That would be when I asked you to turn back around and travel equal distance going backwards that you traveled going forward...

That's ONE point, where is the other one? I keep asking you, yet all you can do is supply one day. You still can't tell me what the other day is, can you?

What non-existence point?

I don't know, you tell me, you were the one who kept asking me how far that point is equal distance to how far I walked to get to you. To get to you from where exactly?

If the equivalent point that you were asked to give me is non-existent (if that is what you are talking about)...if it is so obvious that such a point is non-existent, then it should be just as obvious that the present point (me standing/today) would also be non-existence.

That is not obvious at all, it's the very opposite, it's non-sequitur. Your inability to tell me what the other point you are referring to is, doesn't mean this point doesn't exist.

And if you think otherwise...then simply give me the equivalent amount of days in the past.

Equivalent to what? You say the number of days I traversed to get to today, to get to today from which day? Tell me.

If God is eternal (meaning he never began to exist), then it is simply foolish to ask about God's creator.

Just as it is foolish to ask about a specific day that is equivalent amount of days in the past.

I fail to see what that has to do with you not being able to answer a simple question, if your view of reality is actually true.

I am in the same situation as a Christian who is not able to answer the simple question "who created God," given the premise that Christianity is actually true. Is that not obvious?

Who said you can get from the beginning to the present in an infinite regression?

That would be you.

I never said anything about a beginning of an infinite regression. You are lying.

The record shows otherwise - and I quote: "the scenario was used as an arbitrary conceptual device to demonstrate that one cannot traverse infinity from a beginning point." Not to mention the numerous time where you referred to a point equal distance to run to where you are, or a day that is supposed to be equivalent to the amount of days that I traversed to get to today.

You have already been caught once on this exact quote, why would you put yourself through it again?

And please tell the audience why there is something wrong for me to talk about traversing infinity, when, if time had no beginning, an infinite amount of days would be traversed in order for us to arrive at "today".

That's exactly that is wrong to talk about traversing infinity, because there would only be a finite amount of days to be traversed in order for us to arrive at today, even with no beginning.

Wait a minute, so are you saying that it would make no sense for you to have been running for eternity and suddenly stop at any given point on the road? LOL.

No, that much is fine. What doesn't make sense is the part about "equal distance (west) that relative to the distance that you reached when you met me (east)."

Red Herrings.

Incorrect, it's an analogy of what you are doing.

Yeah, accuse me of not understanding my own scenario to cover up the fact that you are unable to adequately answer the questions related to the scenario, which does an excellent job of exposing your logically absurd views on reality.

All it does is expose some logical absurdity that no one other than you is suggesting.

LOL. You don't have any choice but to let it slide. What can you possibly do? Give an adequate, well thought-out response to a logically impossible scenario?

Pointing out the fact that said "logically impossible scenario" is a strawman, is adequate to any reasonable person, and should have been adequate to you.

LOL. I said apply a natural number to ALL of the days prior to today (all days of the past), in numerical order...and once you reach the equivalent amount of days as you count to the past (that we've traversed to get to "today"), you will arrive at a specific day of the past...and I want you to simply tell me what numbered day would that be.

Tell me which day it is, and I'll tell you the number. You say "equivalent amount of days as I count to the past," that doesn't identify a day.

You didn't do that...so no, I don't find it adequate. I mean, geez...you had no problems answering the "football stadium" thingy...now, you've got nothing to say?

No idea where you got that impression from - I have lots to say, 1) you haven't tell me what day you are referring to; 2) You can't tell me because you are thinking of the "beginning," a beginning that wouldn't exist in an infinite regression; 3) I need two points to measure between, your question is malformed for only supplying one point.

There doesn't have to be a beginning, that is irrelevant. All you are doing is simply going back in time and stopping once you reached equivalent distance going backwards that you TRAVERSED going forward.

TRAVERSED going forward FROM WHERE? Tell me where that is. Did you mean 10 days ago? Did you mean 100 days ago? Or perhaps 1000 days ago or even 10000 days ago?

You are thinking of TRAVERSED going forward form the "beginning" aren't you?

What is so difficult about it?

You've only given me one point instead of two, that's what's so difficult about it.

LOL. Either you can do it, or you can't. If you can, let me know...

I've already let you know - I cannot answer your question because it was malformed. You need to give me two points to measure between, not just one.

Was there a beginning to you running in the scenario? So what is the beginning?

You tell me, you are the one who keep asking about it. There is no beginning in my scenario.

Because I spend more time addressing your obvious distractions from the central issue than I do on the actual issues. Those are red herrings...distractions, diversions, smoke screens...all to take away from the fact that you are being check-mated....a lot.

From where I am sitting, I am seeing you hand waving my counter-points aside labelling them as red herring. You are the one with the diversions, smoke screens. Readers will note that you've been quite selective in choosing what you respond to and what you ignore.

For example, why is it that you didn't respond to the part about "every point west on that road is the equal distance that it took me from that point to get to you?"

No syllogism needed...all I have to do is repeat my task to you;

Apply a natural number to ALL of the days prior to today (all days of the past), in numerical order...and once you reach the equivalent amount of days as you count to the past (that we've traversed to get to "today"), you will arrive at a specific day of the past...and I want you to simply tell me what numbered day would that be.

All I have to do is repeat my respond to you. There is no such "specific day of past." EVERY day is equivalent amount of days away from today, as it took for me to get to today from that particular day. Tell me which day you meant by "equivalent amount of days as you count to the past (that we've traversed to get to "today")" first and then I will answer.

Yesterday is 1 day away, the equivalent amount of days that it took to traversed to today (i.e. 1 day) from yesterday.
The day before yesterday is 2 days away, the equivalent amount of days that it took to traversed to today (i.e. 2 days) from the day before yesterday.
And the day before that is 3 days away, the equivalent amount of days that it took to traversed to today (i.e. 3 days) from that particular day.
And the day before that is 4 days away, the equivalent amount of days that it took to traversed to today (i.e. 4 days) from that particular day.
And the day before that is 5 days away, the equivalent amount of days that it took to traversed to today (i.e. 5 days) from that particular day.
And so on for every day in that sequence. So once again, which day did you have in mind?

Then again, I know exactly what "day" it is that you have been hinting at; form this day I can never arrive at today no matter how I wait, you were thinking of a day that is infinitely many days away from today - you were thinking of the "beginning" weren't you?

Now, if the amount of days which lead to today is infinite, then there should be a clear and definite answer for you to give me.

Incorrect. There is no definite answer I can give you, because there is no one "specific day of the past." EVERY day of that infinite past is the equivalent amount of days that it took to traversed to today from that particular day. Your question didn't specify traversing to today from WHICH day.

If there is something that you don't understand about it, let me know, and I will clarify.

I don't understand why you thought there would be some "specific day of the past" that would be equivalent amount of days as we've traversed to get to "today." Reword your scenario as counting numbers, perhaps then you'll see how it's nonsensical.

But that question needs to be answered, though...

There is no answer because the question is malformed.

Still contradicting yourself.

One contradiction after the other.

Ask if you don't understand, instead of hand waving it away as "contradiction."

Bro, what the hell are you talking about??? You sit there and make this distinction as if one of those contentions is absurd and the other is just perfectly logical.

That's the point - I am sitting here, making this distinction as if one of those contentions is absurd and the other is just perfectly logical, exactly because one of those contentions (yours) is absurd and the other (mine) is perfectly logical.

... when they both mean the same thing in the sense that to believe one is to imply the other.

If the past is eternal, then there were an INFINITE AMOUNT OF DAYS TO BE TRAVERSED FROM...and since we arrived at today from an eternal past, we've traversed an INFINITE AMOUNT OF DAYS.

The fact that we traversed an INFINITE AMOUNT OF DAYS to get to today...

Incorrect. It's time you get this misconception out of your mind. It is the same mistake you've been making over and over again, and I've been correcting you over and over again.

Given that the past is eternal, there would indeed be an INFINITE AMOUNT OF DAYS TO BE TRAVERSED FROM... but we only need to since traversed a FINITE AMOUNT OF DAYS to arrive at today from every single one of those days.

Analogy to the infinite number line, there would be an INFINITE AMOUNT OF INTEGERS TO COUNT FROM... but we only need to count a FINITE AMOUNT OF NUMBERS to arrive at zero from every single one of those integers.

Repeat after me: I am proposing that we traversed an FINITE amount of days to get to today form an eternal past... FINITE.

I am trying to be as respectful as I can...but I really feel as if I am responding to complete and utter nonsense.

Well, such is the depth of your misconceptions.

Do you deny that there are an infinite amount of integers? Do you deny that each one of those integer is a finite number? Do you deny that we can count to each one of those integer in a finite number of steps? Go on, declare for the world to know, that you think these claims are complete and utter nonsense.

None of these are controversial, these claims should be trivial to anyone with a high school education. On top of that, there are easy to follow mathematic proofs for those of you who can't at a glance, see these truth. I've offered to supply said proofs if required. But no, you are not interested, you are just gonna wing it that one question. I challenged you to come up with two days that are infinitely far apart, but no, you are not interested, you are just gonna stick to that one question.

I don't see you denying an infinite number line, so why do you have so much problem generalising counting numbers to traversing days? There is a one-to-one correspondence between numbers and days. Every day in an infinite past can be assign one unique number. Counting from 1 to 5 is equivalent to traverse from Monday to Friday. An infinite time line is just as logically valid as an infinite number line.

Again, either you are being intellectually dishonest, or you don't see the logical flaws in what you say...or maybe a little bit of both, but now it is quite sickening.

Or I am much better at mathematic than you give me credit for, and can identify the misconception you hold that lead you to see "flaws" where there isn't any. What I am saying here is not controversial at all: The claim "infinite amount of integers to count from" does not imply, let alone mean the same thing as "counting from infinity."

Applying that to the time line, "infinite amount of days to travers from" does not imply, let alone mean the same thing as "traversing an infinite amount of days."

So now, what it all comes down to is simple; Either you can answer the questions above, or you can't. Plain and simple. This I will promise; if you are unable to answer the questions in your next post...I am done with this convo with you...and I mean it, this time.

There we have it, readers. Everything my opponent had to offer can be boiled down to one question "if the past is eternal then how do you get to here?" Get here from where, I asked, he doesn't say. He wouldn't say because he knows he couldn't say "the beginning" even though that's exactly what he had in mind. He is ending the conversation as a final dodge from having to answer "from where?" I will take this as a win.

[Talishi]

There we have it, readers. Everything my opponent had to offer can be boiled down to one question "if the past is eternal then how do you get to here?"

It's the same question as asking "how do you get from here to t plus infinity?" but in reverse. Answer is, you don't, for any rate of advance you care to name.

[For_The_Kingdom]

No, I haven't implied such a thing at all. That fact that what you have suggested here is circular reasoning, should have been enough to tell you that you've created a strawman.

Physical reality began to exist, and you appealed to physical reality (metaphysical universe) to explain the origins of physical reality...which is circular reasoning...and thus, fallacious.

I did give you an analogy - I am proposing that I can count from any number to zero in a finite number of steps, that's one concept.

But if you did that, you wouldn't be counting all of the numbers in the "infinite number" scale, would you? You will be starting from a finite number, and counting to another finite number.

But in my analogy, you would have reached infinity from an infinite distance, so there was no arbitrary starting point...and I am sure you realized the problem you had, which is I am sitting here, days after, still waiting on an adequate response from you in that regard.

Your strawman is proposing that one can count to/from infinity, these are absolutely not the same thing and only the latter is absurd.

Nonsense...if you traversed that many (infinite) days moving forward to arrive at a specific day...then you should be able to simply retrace your steps (days) to get to the same amount of days going backwards, and arriving at a specific day of the past.

Just like in the football example, you walked 20 yards moving forward, and was asked walk back where you came and stop when you reached equal distance...you did it...so, if you did it in that example, you should be able to do it with the "running man" example...but you can't, because it can't happen.

Second challenge - present a quote of my proposing something along the lines of "possible for us to arrive at today after having traversed an infinite amount of prior days." Don't felt like meeting the challenge? Then retract your claim.

This may be my last post to you in this regard anyway, if you are unable to answer the analogy.

And in turn I said the "irrational concept" that you are describing, is a fantasy of your own creation, and is a strawman argument.

Nonsense. If there was no beginning to time (synonymous with no beginning to your running), then there were an infinite amount of days which lead to today (synonymous to an infinite amount of steps which lead to you meeting me on the road).

There was no fantasy...the scenario reflects the reality of a past eternal universe...and you are simply unable to answer it.

By assuming that an infinity is itself an absurdity, that's why it is question begging.

So, if there was no beginning to time, then there were an infinite amount of day which lead to today....so if you were able to go back in time, day by day, and traverse the same amount of days backwards into the past that you traversed to arrive at the present day, what day would you arrive at?

No matter what day you claim (if any), you will arrive at a finite day...but that is absurd, considering there was obviously days "before" even that day, so you will never reach the "same amount of days". That is the absurdity.

I am not appeal to any syllogism other than my own. All I brought up Aristotle for, is to illustrate my point that infinite regression isn't trivially false like you'd like to think it is.

So basically, "Aristole believed in infinite regression, but I am unable to provide any evidence of him making a case for it, though".

Well, as I said, the guys that I mentioned made a case AGAINST it....last I checked, philosophers make CASES for their claims..not blank statements.

Traversed from WHERE to get to today?

Umm, perhaps the infinite amount of days which lead to today? That is from "where". I mean, after all, if time had no beginning, we are here based upon the days that we traversed to get here, right?

It would be 1 for one day ago, 2 for two days ago, 3 for three days ago, and so on. So tell me exactly which day you are referring to by "equivalent day" and I'll give you a number.

Right, and so on...this "so on" is INFINITY...which you reach that equivalency, simply tell me what day you are on.

Your question is incomplete, you need to tell me which day you are referring to by "equivalent to the amount of days that you traversed to get to today."

There is really no equivalent day, because the concept is logically absurd...if the concept wasn't logically absurd, then there would be an equivalent day...again, football example; you were able to successfully answer the question because the concept wasn't logically absurd.

Now, we are dealing with a logically absurd concept..that can't be adequately answered.

Correct, I did not have ANY problem answering that scenario because you supplied two specific points.

Right, again, you realize that it would only make sense if you had two specific points, right? Ok, and in the original scenario, there wasn't two specific points, right? So the concept is absurd...and can't be answered.

So, if the analogy can't be answered, and we apply that SAME LINE OF REASONING with the reality of an infinite past...there are no two points between "today", and the infinite amount of days which lead to today...there are no two points, like in the football example.

So therefore, the concept of an infinite amount of days leading to today is just as absurd as the concept of an infinite amount of steps which lead to you meeting me on the road.

Same concept. Same absurdity.

That's ONE point, where is the other one? I keep asking you, yet all you can do is supply one day. You still can't tell me what the other day is, can you?

There really isn't two points.

1.If time had no beginning, then the amount of days which lead to today is infinite.

Got that?

Ok,

2. If there was no beginning to your running (scenario), then the amount of steps which lead to you meeting me is infinite, correct?

Now, if time had no beginning, then #1 would reflect reality, right? So, since #1 reflects reality, in order to demonstrate the absurdity, I can only give a scenario that has the SAME absurdity that #1 has, right? That is what I did.

So, if you have a problem with the scenario, then you have a problem with #1 as it reflects reality.

I don't know, you tell me, you were the one who kept asking me how far that point is equal distance to how far I walked to get to you. To get to you from where exactly?

I was the one who was asking you to simply go back the direction you came and stop once you've reached equal distance. You had no problem answering the question when it came to the "football" scenario...yet, you are having problems when it comes to the "running" scenario...and thus, you realize the problem of infinite regress. And if you think it isn't a problem, then simply answer the scenario.

That is not obvious at all, it's the very opposite, it's non-sequitur. Your inability to tell me what the other point you are referring to is, doesn't mean this point doesn't exist.

The fact that there is no other point is why it is absurd...how is it that you were able to successfully traverse an infinite amount of points to arrive a specific point (me), but you can't run in the opposite direction and traverse the SAME AMOUNT of points and arrive at a specific, previously traversed, single point?

That is the absurdity. You can only reach equivalent distance if there are two points of reference.

Equivalent to what? You say the number of days I traversed to get to today, to get to today from which day? Tell me.

All of the previously traversed days...all of them...all of them were traversed, right? Well.

Just as it is foolish to ask about a specific day that is equivalent amount of days in the past.

No, more like the equivalent amount of days in the past that were traversed to get to the present. If an infinite amount of days were traversed to get to today, then you are simply traversing the same amount of days back into the past.

You wouldn't have so much difficulty answering the scenario's if the concept was coherent.

I am in the same situation as a Christian who is not able to answer the simple question "who created God," given the premise that Christianity is actually true. Is that not obvious?

I am not claiming that God enduring through an "infinite amount of time", am I? No. So the same thing need not apply.

That would be you.

I didn't.

The record shows otherwise - and I quote: "the scenario was used as an arbitrary conceptual device to demonstrate that one cannot traverse infinity from a beginning point."

And the record also shows that in the "running" scenario, there was no beginning point to your running.

Not to mention the numerous time where you referred to a point equal distance to run to where you are, or a day that is supposed to be equivalent to the amount of days that I traversed to get to today.

Bruh, you were asked to simply turn around and run the opposite direction. Plain and simple. If you can't reach equal distance running the oppsite direction that you reached running forward, then you never would have "reached me" in the first place.

Likewise, if you can't reach the equivalent amount of days into the past that you "reached" to get the present, then you would have never "arrived" at today in the first place.

Again, you are making mean faces at the scenario's, when you should be making those faces at the absurd notion that infinity can be traversed to arrive at a specific point.

You have already been caught once on this exact quote, why would you put yourself through it again?

I didn't know which "beginning" point you were referring to...of course, I knew that you wasn't foolish enough to claim that that the scenario had a "beginning" point to the running, because you know full well that it didn't..but then again, you've been disingenuous thus far, so I couldn't be sure.

Not only that, but the beginning point you are referring to is the point at which you were told to "run the opposite direction"...now sure, you can slap my hand and say "but that is absurd", but you should be able to do (run the opposite direction of equivalent distance) if the scenario reflected reality...but it doesn't, unfortunately for your side of things.

That's exactly that is wrong to talk about traversing infinity

Then it is also wrong to talk about an "infinite amount of days being traversed to arrive at today", which is what one must believe if time had no beginning.

because there would only be a finite amount of days to be traversed in order for us to arrive at today, even with no beginning.

The only way we could arrive at "today" is for there to have been beginning. Time must have had a beginning.

No, that much is fine. What doesn't make sense is the part about "equal distance (west) that relative to the distance that you reached when you met me (east)."

Dude, it doesn't make sense because it CAN'T HAPPEN. If you reached a specific point (me) after having just traversed an infinite distance to REACH ME....then you should be able to simply turn around, run the same distance going the opposite direction and stop at a specific point of equivalent distance.

These are the same points that you TRAVERSED to get to me anyway. If you can't pull off this amazing stunt going backwards, then you can't do it going forward...and that is the point..it is absurd, it can't happen.

All it does is expose some logical absurdity that no one other than you is suggesting.

I'm glad you admit it is a logical absurdity.

Pointing out the fact that said "logically impossible scenario" is a strawman, is adequate to any reasonable person, and should have been adequate to you.

Simple. If an infinite amount of days lead to today, then answer the scenario. You can't.

Tell me which day it is, and I'll tell you the number. You say "equivalent amount of days as I count to the past," that doesn't identify a day.

I am not the one that is claiming that it could happen, you are. If it could happen, then I expect an answer.

Ok...this is my last post to you in this regard...promise.

[For_The_Kingdom]

It's the same question as asking "how do you get from here to t plus infinity?" but in reverse. Answer is, you don't, for any rate of advance you care to name.

"We don't"....yet, here we are...at "today" from an infinite amount of days preceding "today"...yet, "we don't".

Makes no sense.

[Bust Nak]

Physical reality began to exist, and you appealed to physical reality (metaphysical universe) to explain the origins of physical reality...which is circular reasoning...and thus, fallacious.

No, I didn't, at least not according to how "physical reality" is defined here. I appealed to physical reality (metaphysical universe) to explain the origins of our universe...which is strictly sequential reasoning...and not fallacious at all.

But if you did that, you wouldn't be counting all of the numbers in the "infinite number" scale, would you?

I challenge you to name me an integer that I cannot count to/from. Do that, or accept that I can count to/from all of them, all infinitely many of them.

You will be starting from a finite number, and counting to another finite number.

Just as I could starting timekeeping at any arbitrary day and traversing one day at a time to arrive at today. There is a finite number of steps between any two days in an eternal past.

But in my analogy, you would have reached infinity from an infinite distance so there was no arbitrary starting point...

What's this about reaching infinity? I can reach an infinite amount of days, none of which is infinity. Just as I can count to an infinite amount of integers, none of which is infinity.

...and I am sure you realized the problem you had, which is I am sitting here, days after, still waiting on an adequate response from you in that regard.

Yes, the problem I had is that there is no answer to your malformed question, I need two specific points before I can answer. Your wait can stop any time you choose, just give me those two specific points - one is where you are standing, where is the other one? You are only prolonging your wait by not supplying that information.

Nonsense...if you traversed that many (infinite) days moving forward to arrive at a specific day...

How many times do I have to tell you I traversed that FINITE number of days to arrive at a specific day?

Just like in the football example, you walked 20 yards moving forward, and was asked walk back where you came and stop when you reached equal distance...you did it...so, if you did it in that example, you should be able to do it with the "running man" example...

Incorrect, I shouldn't be able to do it, not without two specific points. There were two points in the football example, but there was only one in the running man example. Give me two then I will be able to answer as easily as I could the football example.

This may be my last post to you in this regard anyway, if you are unable to answer the analogy.

Third challenge - present a quote of me proposing something along the lines of "having traversed an infinite amount of prior days."

Nonsense. If there was no beginning to time (synonymous with no beginning to your running), then there were an infinite amount of days which lead to today (synonymous to an infinite amount of steps which lead to you meeting me on the road).

So far so good.

There was no fantasy...the scenario reflects the reality of a past eternal universe...and you are simply unable to answer it.

But your question is still absurd. You have only given me one point where I needed two to answer.

You only gave me one point because you imagined an implicit "beginning." The same way the question "how did you to get to work today" implicitly refers to "getting to work from home." Every time you ask me that question without given me two specific points, you've commit the same error of presuming a "beginning," a beginning that does not exist in an infinite regression. That is the fantasy I accused you of creating. Of course the situation is absurd - there is no beginning yet you ask me about a beginning; the absurdity lies with your question, not with infinite regression.

So, if there was no beginning to time, then there were an infinite amount of day which lead to today....so if you were able to go back in time, day by day, and traverse the same amount of days backwards into the past that you traversed to arrive at the present day, what day would you arrive at?

The question still doesn't make sense. Traversed to arrive at the present day from which day?

No matter what day you claim (if any), you will arrive at a finite day...but that is absurd, considering there was obviously days "before" even that day, so you will never reach the "same amount of days". That is the absurdity.

Incorrect, every day is the same amount of days away as it took for me to arrive at today from that day. The existence of other days before that day is irrelevant - the number 3 is 4 away from the number 7, and 4 is the same amount the number 7 is away from the number 3, the existence of the numbers 0, 1 and 2 prior to the number 3 doesn't affect that a single bit.

Still, it is clear that by "reaching the same amount of days" you were referring to this "day" in the past that had no piror days before it. Well, there is a word for that, a day without any piror days before it - "beginning." I was accusing you of creating a fantasy, a strawman verson of my proposal, of inserting boundaries where there is none. Guilty as charged.

So basically, "Aristole believed in infinite regression, but I am unable to provide any evidence of him making a case for it, though".

Incorrect, I gave you a book title, remember? Basically Aristotle believed in infinite regression therefore you are wrong to think we can dismiss infinite regression trivially.

Umm, perhaps the infinite amount of days which lead to today?

Well there you go. There are an infinite amount of them, which particular one did you have in mind? You were thinking of the "first" one, the one that is infinitely far away, aren't you? The one you've admitted above as doesn't really exist.

That is from "where". I mean, after all, if time had no beginning, we are here based upon the days that we traversed to get here, right?

Yes. There is an infinite amount of them and we traversed every single one. In addition, every single one of those days is equal number of days away from today, as today is away from that day.

Right, and so on...this "so on" is INFINITY...which you reach that equivalency, simply tell me what day you are on.

There is no reaching infinity, it simply goes on and on without end. I accused you of referring to some non-existent boundary "beginning" point, (or in this particular case, this "ending" point. guilty as charged.

There is really no equivalent day, because the concept is logically absurd...

So why exactly were you expecting an answer, when you know you didn't actually have a particular day in mind? On which planet is it where it is okay to ask "when would you reach this equivalent day, where there is really no equivalent day?" It is clearly a malformed question.

if the concept wasn't logically absurd, then there would be an equivalent day...again, football example; you were able to successfully answer the question because the concept wasn't logically absurd.

No, what is logically absurd, is to think there would be one equivalent day to the football example. In your football example there were two boundaries, so the question was easily answerable. There is no such boundaries in an infinite regression.

Now, we are dealing with a logically absurd concept..that can't be adequately answered.

Yes, it is time you abandon your absurd idea of a boundary in an infinite regression. It is simply incoherent.

Right, again, you realize that it would only make sense if you had two specific points, right? Ok, and in the original scenario, there wasn't two specific points, right? So the concept is absurd...and can't be answered.

Which is why I charged you with asking a malformed question. It IS absurd.

So, if the analogy can't be answered, and we apply that SAME LINE OF REASONING with the reality of an infinite past...there are no two points between "today", and the infinite amount of days which lead to today...there are no two points, like in the football example.

So therefore, the concept of an infinite amount of days leading to today is just as absurd as the concept of an infinite amount of steps which lead to you meeting me on the road.

Which is to say, neither is absurd.

There really isn't two points.

Correct, there are infinitely many points.

1.If time had no beginning, then the amount of days which lead to today is infinite.

Got that?

Sure.

2. If there was no beginning to your running (scenario), then the amount of steps which lead to you meeting me is infinite, correct?

Correct. Two in a row, I am impressed.

Now, if time had no beginning, then #1 would reflect reality, right? So, since #1 reflects reality, in order to demonstrate the absurdity, I can only give a scenario that has the SAME absurdity that #1 has, right? That is what I did.

All you have demonstrated is that your question is absurd, given that there is no beginning.

So, if you have a problem with the scenario, then you have a problem with #1 as it reflects reality.

Good. Because there is nothing wrong with the scenario presented here so far.

I was the one who was asking you to simply go back the direction you came and stop once you've reached equal distance. You had no problem answering the question when it came to the "football" scenario...yet, you are having problems when it comes to the "running" scenario...

Yes, which means there is a problem with your question.

The fact that there is no other point is why it is absurd...

But here are lots of other points - infinitely many in fact, that's why I keep asking you which one you were referring to. Of the infinitely many actual valid points you can choose from, you chose the non-existent "beginning." And to think you shook your head at me, ironic.

how is it that you were able to successfully traverse an infinite amount of points to arrive a specific point (me)...

Don't ask me, I kept telling you, it is impossible to traverse an infinite amount of points to arrive a specific point; and I kept telling you, I traverse an FINITE amount of points to arrive a specific point.

That is the absurdity. You can only reach equivalent distance if there are two points of reference.

So give me two points of reference. Simple, no?

All of the previously traversed days...all of them...all of them were traversed, right? Well.

You were referring to all of them? Well there are infinitely many answers. Which answer would you like to hear first? Yesterday, the day before yesterday, or maybe a week ago?

No, more like the equivalent amount of days in the past that were traversed to get to the present. If an infinite amount of days were traversed to get to today, then you are simply traversing the same amount of days back into the past.

Yes, and I would keep going and going and never stop. What seems to be the problem? Why are you imaging that there would be one specific point that I would stop?

You wouldn't have so much difficulty answering the scenario's if the concept was coherent.

I have difficulty answering because your question is malformed.

I am not claiming that God enduring through an "infinite amount of time", am I? No. So the same thing need not apply.

You were asking a question about a non-existent day, just as the question "who created God" is a question about a non-existent creator of God. A creator of God given an uncreated God is indeed absurd, but that doesn't mean an uncreated God is absurd. Same applies here. A beginning of a sequence with no beginning is absurd, but that doesn't mean a sequence with no beginning is absurd.

I didn't.

The record shows otherwise - and I quote: "the scenario was used as an arbitrary conceptual device to demonstrate that one cannot traverse infinity from a beginning point."

And the record also shows that in the "running" scenario, there was no beginning point to your running.

Yes, the record does show that. Which makes your contention all the more strange - you know there is no beginning point, you acknowledged as much, yet you still managed to challenge the idea of "traverse infinity from a beginning point." I can't even imagine what kind of mental process that lead you to think it was some kind of slam-dunk.

Bruh, you were asked to simply turn around and run the opposite direction. Plain and simple. If you can't reach equal distance running the oppsite direction that you reached running forward, then you never would have "reached me" in the first place.

But every point is equal distance away. Me not being able to answer doesn't imply there is some point I cannot reach, I can reach every point on that road. I can't answer your question only because I don't know which point you are referring to.

Likewise, if you can't reach the equivalent amount of days into the past that you "reached" to get the present, then you would have never "arrived" at today in the first place.

But I can reach every day in the past, and every one of those day is equivalent amount of days into the past that I "reached" to arrived at today.

Again, you are making mean faces at the scenario's, when you should be making those faces at the absurd notion that infinity can be traversed to arrive at a specific point.

I AM making mean faces at that notion - I keep telling you infinity cannot be traversed. I accused you of creating a fantasy, guilty as charged.

I didn't know which "beginning" point you were referring to...

Bruh, you were the one who is referring to a "beginning." I kept telling you there is no beginning. So much for accusing others of being disingenuous.

Not only that, but the beginning point you are referring to is the point at which you were told to "run the opposite direction"...now sure, you can slap my hand and say "but that is absurd", but you should be able to do (run the opposite direction of equivalent distance) if the scenario reflected reality...

I can turn around and take a single step and it would be equivalent distance form you as the distance it took for me to reach you from a step away; I can run a mile and it would be equivalent distance form you as the distance it took for me to reach you from there. The only problem is I have two many valid answers but you were expecting none.

Then it is also wrong to talk about an "infinite amount of days being traversed to arrive at today", which is what one must believe if time had no beginning.

Incorrect. One only need to believe that a finite amount of days being traversed to arrive at today if time had no beginning.

The only way we could arrive at "today" is for there to have been beginning. Time must have had a beginning.

Incorrect, the alternative is to arrive at "today" without a beginning.

Dude, it doesn't make sense because it CAN'T HAPPEN. If you reached a specific point (me) after having just traversed an infinite distance to REACH ME....then you should be able to simply turn around, run the same distance going the opposite direction and stop at a specific point of equivalent distance.

These are the same points that you TRAVERSED to get to me anyway. If you can't pull off this amazing stunt going backwards, then you can't do it going forward...and that is the point..it is absurd, it can't happen.

Right, which is why I keep telling you, this "traversed an infinite distance" business of yours, is a fantasy of your own creation. It IS absurd.

I'm glad you admit it is a logical absurdity.

Dude, I've been telling you it is absurd right from the get go - recall if you will, I called your question malformed two weeks ago.

Simple. If an infinite amount of days lead to today, then answer the scenario. You can't.

No, I cannot - it is malformed. I need to you name me two specific points to be able to answer.

I am not the one that is claiming that it could happen, you are. If it could happen, then I expect an answer.

Well, it's about time you change that expectation, either that or amend your question with the two points.

Ok...this is my last post to you in this regard...promise.

Well we already saw what your last promise was worth. Still, I am glad you chose to respond.

Readers, once again we see my opponent finishing without dealing with any of my challenges.

He still won't tell me "get here from where," he knows he can't say "the beginning" and he knows that if he actually named two specific points I would be able to answer his question easily.

He cannot present a quote of me proposing "traversed infinity," yet persist on fighting that strawman.

He has completely avoided my point on the one-to-one mapping of a time line to the number line, yet kept up his insistence that an eternal past equals traversing infinity.

He called me a liar for accusing him of introducing a non-existent beginning when anyone can see that he explicitly stated so on one occasion, never mind the numerous times he referred implicitly to some imaginary boundary point with his question.

He claimed that there are an infinite number of steps between some unspecified day and today in an infinite regression, so I challenged him to name two days that are infinite number of steps apart, he says he doesn't need to meet that challenge because he still have his gotcha question.

The best part is, after days of prodding, he has finally admitted that the "equivalent day" he kept asking about, does not really exist. Asking about something that he knows doesn't exist in my proposal, was his gotcha question. That was the one thing he was banking on, a loaded question, and a malformed one at that.

Ladies and gentlemen, I leave you with a quote by Voltaire. "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it."